Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39ntd.8032$Va5.7008@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:41b5d1cf$0$14577$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Ahem. He cited 65 pounds as the weight of plate armors and
pointed
> out
> > > that this was easier to wear over a long time than 30 pound chain
due to
> > > weight distribution.
> >
> > Yes but he's apparently never heard of using belts to redistribute the
> load.
>
> Irrelevant - plate is easier to wear than chain. He *argued* that
plate
> is easier to wear than chain.
He said more than that though. It doesn't matter if your answer is correct
when your working is wrong. Mail, properly worn, is nothing like a jacket
with strings of lead weight hanging off it as he suggests.
> > Wearing armour and carrying weapons and properly stowed gear weighing
> > 120lbs is not the same as carrying a 120lb rock though.
>
> Depends on how you're carrying the rock, doesn't it? Your legs might
> tell a different story than your shoulders, but his analogy is not
> inappropriate.
Having fancy straps and counter weights to even the load flies against the
point of his comparison though.
> > 1. Arbalestier (sic) would have replaced longbowmen by the 15th
century
> > but for the expense of producing the mechanism.
> >
> > Crossbows surpassed the range of longbows during the medieval period
but
> > the rate of fire and indistinguishable armour penetration capabilities
> > would have kept it firmly in the background were it not for the fact
that
> > they are effective in the hands of the skilled and unskilled alike.
Musket
> > mechanisms were no cheaper to produce than crossbow ones and both
muskets
> > and crossbows suffered more in the rain than the longbow.
>
> What does this have to do with his observation that archers in close
> combat and adventuring are somewhat silly?
Nothing. This has to do with his specific claim wrt to crossbowmen.
At low levels though D&D is pretty good at matching archery speed given
that a skilled archer was supposed to be able to manage a shot every five
seconds or so. Archers didn't only fire in arcing volleys either. At
closer range they'd have a very good chance of killing an approaching
dagger wielder.
> > 2. Technological developments were regional due to poor
communications.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. Europeans (after some delay) learned how to make
Damascus
> > steel and improved it within a short time. By the 14th-15th centuries
> > Soligen blades were as good if not better than anything in the world.
> > Likewise, Milanese armourers exported their armours throughout Europe.
> > Trade was the life blood of the medieval world and they knew it.
>
> The writer doesn't know very much about european sword designs,
having
> bought the myth of damascus and japan being the only places of good
> swordsmithing, but that's a different issue. His error is in assuming
the
> source of the problem is "poor communication", whereas the issue is one
of
> intellectual property, as it were. The art of the smith is a *secret*!
He also applied the same argument to composite bows. It reveals a
staggering inability to appreciate that medieval Europeans used what
suited them best and that renders his perception of the *entire* subject
spotty at best.
> > 6. Suit of plate only wearable by person it is designed for and it
took 2
> > years to make them.
> >
> > Milanese armourers exported generic pieces designed to be fitted
locally
> > and they didn't take 2 years to do it either.
>
> Another gap in his knowledge. However, I believe this part of the
> document was a suggestion to treat every such armor as an incarnation of
the
> best custom work.
It reads to me as more like a list of reasons why plate armour wouldn't
become utterly and universally dominant in a party of adventurers.
> > 7. Proper use of swordsmen is as a mobile reserve. Spears rule in
> > formation.
> >
> > Rather ignores the pesky Romans who defeated spear formations and used
> > swords in the front rank. The primary reason for the popularity of
spears
> > in formation was not other infantry. It was to deter *cavalry*.
>
> He wasn't talking about the Roman era, and you know full well that
> shieldwall-and-shortsword is a very special case that has little bearing
on
> the use of the sword in European warfare in the middle ages.
But there is a *reason* for that which has nothing to do with swords. They
weren't more common because of the economic and social realities of the
time. The difference with the Romans was the fact that they would provide
the expensive sword, armour and shield and spend the best part of a
campaigning season teaching the soldier how to use it. A levy in the
medieval world is a bunch of people bringing their own cheap stuff and
going straight into service. Only a core of sword wielding nobles and
trained men at arms were anything like professional soldiers.
Besides you can't argue with bringing the Romans up given that his history
of the general use of the spear in battle falls into that timeline. He
mentioned the Greeks after all.
> The reasons to
> use any given weapon vary from situation to situation - but he's right
> enough that spears were primary weapons of war for a long time,
But he's quite wrong about *why*. D&D in its current incarnation gets the
stats about right IMO.
> > 8. Some nonsense about archers being killed in close combat and volley
> fire.
> >
> > Archers were strong men and though equipped as befitted their low
status
> > and primary role carried melee weapons too. They made use of the
> > battlefield, stakes driven into the ground and did not only fire in
mass
> > volleys or run away when the enemy was starting to get close.
>
> I would be very surprised if every archer was as effective in melee
as
> Agincourt.
Undoubtably but that doesn't mean they were routinuely swept away in
charges either. Sure, they'd retreat in the face of imminent attack to
redeploy on the flanks but they didn't fire distant volleys and then fade
into obscurity. Plenty of charges were broken up by lethally short range
shooting. A cavalry swiftly loses its integrity when it has to clamber
over the bodies of the dead.
> > 9. Mongol composite bows 160lb pull and range of 350 yards.
> >
> > This is simply a crack addled claim. More than double the draw weight
of
> > any reasonable estimate I've seen. There is little evidence that their
bow
> > design significantly differed from other cultures that used composite
> > materials and a bow of such strength usable from the back of a horse
would
> > be next to impossible to build.
>
> Aye, those were funny numbers. Mongol bows were significant because
of
> the power they packed *for their size*, not for the power they packed,
as it
> were.
Exactly.
> > 10. English longbow 50-60lb pull and 200 yard range.
> >
> > Odd then that the Mary Rose bows had draw strengths well beyond that
with
> > the largest staves possessing an estimated 150lb pull. Odd also that
even
> > adolescent archers were required by law to train at distances greater
than
> > 200 yards. The advantage of a composite bow was that it was more
> > mechanically efficient, *not* that you could end up with draw
strengths
> > that surpassed self bows. The idea of a bow used from the back of a
horse
> > having a higher draw strength than a 6ft infantry war bow designed to
> > penetrate the best armour in the world (at the time) is patently
absurd.
>
> Bow draw weights are among the most boggled facts on the net.
They certainly are in most Usenet discussions I recall. Largely because of
old fasioned assumptions made without archealogical evidence popularized
by influencial authors like Oman IIRC.
> > 11. Compared to a Teutonic knight a Mongol may has well have been
armed
> > with a submachine gun.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Rather depends on the range of the fight. A mounted knight passing
> through less-well-equipped infantry is going to be a "submachine gun",
too.
The Mongols were basically a well disciplined and well trained light
cavalry army (who absorbed the technical expertise of other cultures,
particularily siege techniques). Had they been immersed in a deeper
European conflict they'd have found the terrain unsuited to their tactics.
> > I'm sure I've missed things skimming through but there is a lot of
rubbish
> > in there.
>
> The spirit of the discussion was fair enough.
Spirit schmirit!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram